British-American philosopher Mick Jagger put it best: “You can’t always get what you want.”
A universal verity.
But what about a sadder situation? “You must always get what you don’t want.”
Only the deepest pessimist thinks this pertains to our lives, our “lived experience” in even these our mixed-up times. But it does apply to one huge domain of life: our representation in Congress.
Or so says Stephen Erickson. “The American people consistently rank career politicians among the least trustworthy professions. At the same time, professional politicians are supposed to represent us, and they have more power over our lives than any other profession.”
I don’t think this needs to be argued. Though Mr. Erickson does cite evidence, the thesis hardly needs massive data sets. Or British-American philosophers. So what to do? Erickson, being a practical man, takes the bull by the bumps on its head, two of them:
“First, we need to show how representative democracy might work without professional politicians.” The basic proposal is to “Reduce all local electoral districts to no more than 10,000 residents” where “every district becomes walkable and winnable with handshakes, flyers and yard signs.” This would work because small districts turn politics into “personal reputations and relationships, not money and marketing. Special interests therefore lose their influence.”
His second show-and-tell is “a realistic path forward.” That path lies with “the citizens’ initiative and referendum.”
As readers of this column know, my support for this more direct approach is both long-standing and thorough-going. The initiative process is the only decent process for serious reforms of our representative system because our representatives will block serious reform otherwise.
Please read Stephen Erickson’s essay, “How to Eliminate Politics as a Profession.”
No one wants to be their Beast of Burden.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
Illustration created with Grok Imagine
See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts
3 replies on “What We Want and How to Get It”
I think that the case for a dramatically enlarged legislature must needs explain that Americans would be better served if the process of passing legislation did not involve so much deal-making and instead was like the passage of referenda
Electoral districts of no more than 10,000 residents? That’s a minimum of 33,000 districts. Great for those who want to grow government. Most districts, outside of large cities, will hardly be ‘walkable. Try getting handshakes from people driving to and from work. Even if you go door to door, most places will not be walkable. Districts can cross highways and major roads. If people think professional politicians are the most dangerous then why do those politicians get reelected over 90% of the time? Over 85% of Americans have a negative view of Congress, but most approve of their own representatives. You can’t have it both ways. Initiative process sounds good – until a court strikes down the law that voters approved or until a legislative body rewrites or even overturns it.
This proposal does not address the real problem: American government today has way too much power and spends way too much money. Having smaller districts and larger legislatures would not change its destructive role as robber and sugar daddy. If, on the other hand, the government were shrunk to something legitimate, say to 5% of its current size, district and legislature sizes would be all but irrelevant.